Why isn't there a police case against Tapas Pal, HC asks Bengal govt

Calcutta high court reprimanded Trinamool Congress actor-MP Tapas Pal's counsel on Wednesday for trying to downplay the lawmaker's shameful rape speech as an "emotional outburst" and for asking the court to pardon him because he had sought a public apology.

TNN | Jul 24, 2014, 03.57 AM IST

KOLKATA: Calcutta high court reprimanded Trinamool Congress actor-MP Tapas Pal's counsel on Wednesday for trying to downplay the lawmaker's shameful rape speech as an "emotional outburst" and for asking the court to pardon him because he had sought a public apology.

Justice Dipankar Datta was in no mood to take cognizance of Pal's apology. "What apology? Does a rapist get legal reprieve by seeking an apology?" Justice Datta asked Pal's counsel Rajdeep Majumdar.

The court then wanted to know from government pleader Ashok Banerjee what steps police had taken against the accused. "Police should have started a case, suo motu, even if there was no complaint. Tell me right now whether Pal delivered the speech or not," Justice Datta said.

The government pleader ran out of words and took defence by saying that he is not Pal's counsel. "I have nothing to say," said Banerjee. The court didn't buy the argument. "Don't say this. Is it not the responsibility of the government pleader to aid and advise the government in the right direction?" the judge asked.

The court also turned down the counsel's request to view the video recording of Pal's inciting speech inside his chamber. "The world has come to know about it. Moreover, Pal is not a loafer, he is a responsible lawmaker," the judge said, asking for video recording to be played out in the packed courtroom.

After watching the video, Justice Datta asked the public prosecutor why Section 153 of IPC - wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot - should not be invoked against Pal. The observation came after public prosecutor Manjit Singh submitted that he has sought to charge Pal with criminal intimidation and speech to insult the modesty of women. Prior to this, petitioner Biplab Chowdhury's counsel Aniruddha Chatterjee read out a series of sections under IPC and a section under People's Representation Act that might be slapped against the MP.

Addressing the government pleader and public prosecutor, Justice Datta said: "Don't you feel after seeing this video that right to life is in jeopardy?" Pal's counsel tried to argue that the accused MP was "upset with the killings preceding his tour to Nadia". "What he said is an emotional outburst. However, he sought public apology through the media," Majumdar said.

The public prosecutor pleaded with the court to consider that Pal had made the speech "as a reaction to what had happened". "I do not support the language. But It appears from the video recording that Tapas Pal didn't go on the offensive on his own. He reacted in self-defence to what had happened," Singh said, pointing out that Pal had not made any such statement after that hate speech and that there was "no major incident following his speech". Singh pleaded that the court should not give much importance to this speech.

Taking cue, the government pleader contested the petition on technical grounds. Banerjee argued that the court should treat the petitions as PILs and not writ petitions because the speech didn't cause any personal injury to the petitioners. The court didn't entertain the view. "Why are you taking a U-turn now? The last time you argued that the court should take it up as a writ petition because there was no police complaint in this case. But the second petition is preceded by a police complaint," said Justice Datta. He continued with the hearing but reserved the interim order.

RELATED

From around the web

More from The Times of India

Recommended By Colombia

From Around the Web

More From The Times of India

Recommended By Colombia

Comments

Characters Remaining: 3000

OR PROCEED WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Share on Twitter

SIGN IN WITH

FacebookGoogleEmail

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.